Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SOLE v. WYNER
Syllabus
into the water in the nude. Thereafter, Wyner pursued her demand
for a permanent injunction, noting that she intended to put on an
other Valentines Day production at MacArthur Beach, again involv
ing nudity. After discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment.
At a January 21, 2004 hearing, Wyners counsel acknowledged that
the peace symbol display participants had set up in front of the bar
rier. The court denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and
granted defendants motion for summary final judgment. The delib
erate failure of Wyner and her coparticipants to stay behind the
screen at the 2003 Valentines Day display, the court concluded,
demonstrated that the Bathing Suit Rules prohibition of nudity was
essential to protect the visiting public. While Wyner ultimately
failed to prevail on the merits, the court added, she did obtain a pre
liminary injunction, and therefore qualified as a prevailing party to
that extent. Reasoning that the preliminary injunction could not be
revisited at the second stage of the litigation because it had expired,
the court awarded plaintiff counsel fees covering the first phase of the
litigation. The Florida officials appealed, challenging both the pre
liminary injunction and the counsel fees award. The Eleventh Cir
cuit held first that defendants challenges to the preliminary injunc
tion were moot. The court then affirmed the counsel fees award,
reasoning that the preliminary order allowed Wyner to present the
peace symbol display unimpeded by adverse state action.
Syllabus
would have made a fee request at the initial stage premature. Of
controlling importance, the eventual ruling on the merits for defen
dants, after both sides considered the case fit for final adjudication,
superseded the preliminary ruling. Wyners temporary success
rested on a premisethe understanding that a curtain or screen
would adequately serve Floridas interest in shielding the public from
nuditythat the District Court, with the benefit of a fuller record, ul
timately rejected. Wyner contends that the preliminary injunction
was not undermined by the subsequent merits adjudication because
the decision to grant preliminary relief was an as applied ruling
based on the officials impermissible content-based administration of
the Bathing Suit Rule. But the District Court assumed content neu
trality for purposes of its preliminary order. The final decision in
Wyners case rejected the same claim she advanced in her prelimi
nary injunction motion: that the state law banning nudity in parks
was unconstitutional as applied to expressive, nonerotic nudity. At
the end of the fray, Floridas Bathing Suit Rule remained intact.
Wyner had gained no enduring chang[e] [in] the legal relationship
between herself and the state officials she sued. See Texas State
Teachers Assn., 489 U. S., at 792. Pp. 610.
(b) Wyner is not a prevailing party, for her initial victory was
ephemeral. This Court expresses no view on whether, in the absence
of a final decision on the merits of a claim for permanent injunctive
relief, success in gaining a preliminary injunction may sometimes
warrant an award of counsel fees. It decides only that a plaintiff who
gains a preliminary injunction does not qualify for an award of coun
sel fees under 1988(b) if the merits of the case are ultimately de
cided against her. Pp. 1011.
179 Fed. Appx. 566, reversed and remanded.
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
No. 06531
_________________
[June 4, 2007]
SOLE v. WYNER
Opinion of the Court
ers here, regard the case as a unit; they urge that a pre
liminary injunction holds no sway once fuller considera
tion yields rejection of the provisional orders legal or
factual underpinnings. We agree with the latter position
and hold that a final decision on the merits denying per
manent injunctive relief ordinarily determines who pre
vails in the action for purposes of 1988(b). A plaintiff
who achieves a transient victory at the threshold of an
action can gain no award under that fee-shifting provision
if, at the end of the litigation, her initial success is undone
and she leaves the courthouse emptyhanded.
I
In mid-January 2003, plaintiff-respondent T. A. Wyner
notified the Florida Department of Environmental Protec
tion (DEP) of her intention to create on Valentines Day,
February 14, 2003, within John D. MacArthur Beach
State Park, an antiwar artwork. The work would consist
of nude individuals assembled into a peace sign. By letter
dated February 6, DEP informed Wyner that her peace
sign display would be lawful only if the participants com
plied with the Bathing Suit Rule set out in Florida Ad
ministrative Code 62D2.014(7)(b) (2005). That rule
required patrons, in all areas of Floridas state parks, to
wear, at a minimum, a thong and, if female, a bikini top.1
To safeguard the Valentines Day display, and future
expressive activities of the same order, against police
interference, Wyner filed suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 12,
2003. She invoked the First Amendments protection of
expressive conduct, and named as defendants the Secre
2 Wyner
SOLE v. WYNER
Opinion of the Court
SOLE v. WYNER
Opinion of the Court
3 Buckhannon
SOLE v. WYNER
Opinion of the Court
10
SOLE v. WYNER
Opinion of the Court
11